Andrew Sullivan is just addicted to bogus drama, isn’t he? Now I’m a “leading Christianist” who has “fought back” against Sullivan’s essay. Oh please. This isn’t some epic conflict. I’ve just criticized some of his writings for their inanity and inconsistency. I’m also supposedly an “advocate[] for fusing Republicanism with religious fundamentalism.” He provides not a scrap of evidence for this charge, and it isn’t true. I’m not a religious fundamentalist–unless, again, all you have to do to qualify for the phrase is to take public-policy positions of which Sullivan does not approve.

His latest post exhibits most of the bad rhetorical habits I mentioned earlier today. Sullivan continues to treat positions he once took himself as beyond the pale–note that dismissive reference to ”microscopic zygotes”–without even acknowledging that he once held them. Second, having piously claimed that the label “Christianist” is not intended to associate religious conservatives with violence and terrorism, he insinuates exactly such an association in his latest post. I cannot be too offended when Sullivan misrepresents my views, given his evident difficulty in keeping track of his own.

Sullivan concludes by positing himself as a spokesman for “mainstream Christians.” It’s a poisonous claim–as bad as the worst rhetoric that sometimes comes from religious conservatives. It’s also absurd. Same-sex marriage may or may not be a good idea, but the notion that it represents mainstream Christianity is pretty far-fetched.